PofoliaShared via Pofolia

Review of International Political Economy· 2016Q1· Review

IMF conditionality and development policy space, 1985–2014

Alexander Kentikelenis, Thomas Stubbs, Lawrence King

Short summary

Contrary to claims of reform, IMF loan programs between 1985 and 2014 show little evidence of increased policy space for recipient countries, with conditionality actually increasing post-2008.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • Analysis of 55,465 IMF policy conditions across 131 countries (1985-2014).
  • No fundamental transformation in IMF conditionality or increased policy space found.
  • Number of conditions increased, particularly in post-2008 programs.
  • Social policy protections were inadequately incorporated into program design.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

In recent years, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has re-emerged as a central actor in global economic governance. Its rhetoric and policies suggest that the organization has radically changed the ways in which it offers financial assistance to countries in economic trouble. We revisit two long-standing controversies: Has the policy content of IMF programmes evolved to allow for more policy space? Do these programmes now allow for the protection of labour and social policies? We collected relevant archival material on the IMF's lending operations and identified all policy conditionality in IMF loan agreements between 1985 and 2014, extracting 55,465 individual conditions across 131 countries in total. We find little evidence of a fundamental transformation of IMF conditionality. The organization's post-2008 programmes reincorporated many of the mandated reforms that the organization claims to no longer advocate and the number of conditions has been increasing. We also find that policies introduced to ameliorate the social consequences of IMF macroeconomic advice have been inadequately incorporated into programme design. Drawing on this evidence, we argue that multiple layers of rhetoric and ceremonial reforms have been designed to obscure the actual practice of adjustment programmes, revealing an escalating commitment to hypocrisy.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Review of International Political Economy, 2016 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Development

DevelopmentSocial Sciences